Sometimes I feel, that Canon and Nikon talk to each other, where the cutoff of the maximum price most buyers will pay for an product is.

I listened to an Nikon-seller information meeting. There will be an 800mm lens with an enormous price of more then 17.000€!! You can be sure that, if Canon produces something equal to that, the pricelevel will be equal to Nikons price.

In my opinion, the 100-400 II will be priced above the Nikon 80-400. Canon will find an reason to do that.

I love my 100-400, but will think of buying the II version (if not pulling zoom). But only, if the lens will be under 2500.

Okay, I am interested in this lens but... I use and love the 400 5.6 L, and what I would really like is a 500 5.6, with or without "IS" say $2500 without and $3200 with "IS"

Just guessing, but I think 500/5.6 puts it into the ~$4K range based on element size. I doubt we'll see one - over 400mm, Canon wants more of your money than that...

Don't tell Canon, but, I would probably buy it at $3500-$4000. I really think there is a missing $3-$5000 hole in their lineup.

I'd be pretty interested in a 500 f5.6 IS at that price expecially if its not too bulky and has an integrated lens hood like the 300f4L and 400 f5.6 do

Yeah me too, I'd be interested.

Front element size should be around 10 cm (IS lenses are always a little bigger than fl/aperture). That's still very portable.

However at that price I'm looking towards Sigma, not Canon. As for 100-400, I think a Canon 100-400/4-5.6 L mk2 will come in around $3.5 to $3.6 k.

Which Sigma? I don't think they have anything comparible in their catalogue to the Canon 200-400. I've used a 120-300 and it was a nice lens but there is so much focus breathing, at min focus distance there's not much benefit over a 70-200/2.8. It might state 120-300 on the lens casing but it rarely is. By my estimates it drops down to a very poor 240mm at MFD. Pop a 1.4x TC on it and it barely scrapes 335mm f4....which isn't much better than a 300mm f4. It's not worth the cost, size or weight in my opinion. Far better off saving for a proper mk I white lens (300/400/500/600).

Looking at their recent pricing strategy with the updated 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 I wouldn't be surprised to see the new 100-400 come in at $2,600-$3,100. I bought the 70-200 2.8 MII (I did not have the MI version), when the 24-70 MII came out I didn't have funds available at the time to get the MI version and by the time I did they were gone so I waited till I had the funds and got the MII. I currently have a 100-400 and use it once in a while and won't bother upgrading as mine works just fine and it is rarely used. Had I already owned the MI versions of the other lenses I more than likely wouldn not have upgraded.

New 100-400mm and 7D seems to be quite the couple these days. For sports and wildlife peeps, its piece of standard kit. Here's my predictions:

100-400mm:1) internal design like the 70-3002) same f4.5-5.6 aperture3) weathersealed like the modern L lenses4) modernized IS5) price bump but not as much as we think...6) updated focus7) Bokeh-licious nine bladed aperture (parity with other L lenses)

Thing is, canon can dip into their cooperate parts bin for bits (weather sealing, IS update) to modernize the lens to keep parity with the L line without radically changing the price point or market for this lens. I think thats critical for them. For wild life and sports, weathersealing is paramount, modernizing the IS and focus, some modern glass to boost contrast, its in line with the updates to the markii's we've seen in the 24-70, 70-200, etc. An F4 version would be so heavy and pricey, and with the 200-400mm on the horizon, it could potentially cannibalize that market. With the new ISO performance of the newer bodies, and in camera lens corrections, the Achilles heal of CA & vignetting can be minimized. So that last 10% of perfection for many lenses can be corrected in software, keeping the price down.

for the 7D, I'd say a 2 stop high iso performance boost so that 6400 becomes the new 1600, courtesy of canon's brainy Digic chips, hopefully retain the legacy of AF speed & flexibility along with 10fps, in keeping with the 1D-lite legacy.

How do you define 'internal design'? The 100-400 has rear 'internal focusing'. If you're referring to the way the lens barrels overlap, I prefer the way the 100-400 is designed, with the outer tube carrying the big front element, and the rear tube carrying the small elements. That is one of the reasons this is such a (relatively) compact design!

I suspect he means a rotating zoom like the 70-300L, vs. the current push-pull design. Personally, I like the push pull, I could learn to live with the rotation but I hope if them implement that design, they don't switch the relative position of the zoom vs. focus rings as they did with the 70-300L (which matches the EF-S 17-55mm, for example, but is the opposite of the L-series standard zoom lenses). I highly doubt they'd make it internally zooming like the 70-200 series, it'd be too long.

I'll be interested to see how this works out, but it doesn't strike me as much of a savings when I've had, for roughly the same price, the ol' 120-300mm + 2X TC combo for a long time. Fills the niche better for my purposes, although of course that won't be true for everyone.

Got some infos from an friend, using the old and the new AF-S VR 80-400mm 4.5-5.6G ED lens:He got it some days ago and was on a trip in the south of Italy.He told me that the new lens has an much faster AF than the predecessor model. But the AF was even not accurate every time. In his opinion Nikon pushed the AF-S VR 80-400mm 4.5-5.6G ED up in image quality and made it faster. But he doubts that he did right by buing this lens, spending 2,5 times more than his old lens costs today. Excellent rumors and advertisements are sometimes not true, as we all know.

Maybe Canon improves the lens too, but will it be 2500-3000€ worth - in comparison to the old 100-400? Let us see.